One of my favourite classes ever, was Monte Cook's Unfettered from MCAU.

I was thinking of doing my own when I stumbled upon this at ENWorld: Light Fighter.

I posted my comments in the thread where the author discusses it, here.

One thing I didn't like is the name.

Take a look, see what you think, otherwise I will have a go myself. I can definitely see extra Archetypes for this class (eg Kensei). I have always liked Dex-based fighters, but in the last editions, you have had to just 'forget' several of your features/proficiencies.

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” – Harry S. Truman

I had a look at this and i think the base was ok, but when you got to the archtypes I think he went overboard and some jsut seem to overlap really what should be different backgrounds rather then archtypes. To me there is no real difference between the Gallant, Musketeer, Duelist and Swashbuckler other than background. I mean yes you can make them different but the question is do you really need to.

Agreed totally Shane. Isn't gallant just combining with Noble BG, and Corsair with the Sailor one? Seems odd to mix BG ideas as archetypes. He even has BG-type powers in there. I tried to express this on the discussion thread. ;)

Perhaps I do create my own Unfettered?

And herein lies the line to watch. Last night I read through the classes in African Adventures. If I was to do a straight conversion, there really is not a lot to do. To built pretty much every class, the options are already there - showing what a good system 5E really is. No use creating for the point of creating.

A lot of old classes can be made with 'this class, this BG and this archetype with these skills'. If I am to do so, I will also look up a little more on what exactly a 'gamba fighter' is for eg - otherwise, the option to build one is already there - just with another name.

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” – Harry S. Truman

It seems this option has garnered quite a bit of negative attention. Not sure how people feel. (Please read/see the Fighter Page).

I was thinking of removing it from general fighter option, but rolling into the Duelist archetype. That way, you can place limitation on it, such as only operates when you have a positive panache score (and it would be a chosen technique).

Can also include in a modified form in the Blade Dancer.

(This will also simplify things too - no need for another choice at fighter level - and will reinforce our archetypes).

The main problem with having it separate is (as someone pointed out on ENWorld), is that the actual archetypes of Duelist and Blade Dancer are made for 'light fighters', but there is little in the actual archetypes to enforce/support this.

So, I was thinking of using this feature within those archetypes rather than as a separate entity. Also need to include more wording around performing maneuvers/techniques with armor.

Thoughts?

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” – Harry S. Truman

That makes sense to me (the incorporating it into Duelist & Blade Dancer) so that there is some enforcement for being a light fighter.

The problem we are going to have with creating these new types is that we don't really get to play test them enough to see how they work compared to other classes and can only use our judgement as to how we think they compare.

Anyway I say that if you think we can get a more solid Duelist & Blade Dance by doing this then go for it. You have put way more thought into how these light fighters work that I would trust your judgement.

You are dead right on the playtesting. I really want to submit a lot of stuff to EN5ider, but it is really hard to do so with full confidence if there has been no playtesting. I have put in a proposal, but not overly confident. But that is why I am rethinking/revisiting these :)

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” – Harry S. Truman

There is a downside to moving DEX-based AC/feature to the subclasses, it does not encourage DEX-based Champions, Battle Masters etc. But this is the case with the PHB anyway.

It would just mean there are 2 archetypes that are extra good with DEX. But, I will put in limitations. I don't actually think I will move Unarmored Defense as it is. (Meaning I will put defensive stuff into subclasses, but not as it currently appears).

In fact, as we have it now, it is FAR too good combined WITH our subclasses. The Dex-based ones already have maneuvers to improve AC. I know they have to choose them, but combined, they could result in very high AC values. I think just removing Unfettered would work. I could reword the AC-based maneuvers.

Blade Dancer's have the following choices for defensive maneuvers:Blocking Blades. You spend 1 momentum point to make a creature within 5 feet of you re-roll one melee attack roll that was directed at you.Evasive Footwork. You can spend 2 momentum points as a bonus action to add a bonus to your AC until the start of your next turn. The bonus is equal to the number of momentum maneuvers you know.Nimble Defense. Whenever you have a minimum of 1 momentum point, you gain advantage on Dexterity saving throws and creatures do not benefit from flanking bonuses or other special features (such as pack tactics) that grant melee bonuses for having allies in combat with you.

Do they really need Unarmored Defense? They also get Evasion (as monk) at 7th level.

Duelist's can choose the following defensive features:Deft. As long as you are not wearing heavy armor, wielding a shield (though you may use a buckler) or encumbered in any way, you can spend a panache point to take the Dash, Disengage, or Dodge action as a bonus action on your turn.Reflex Parry. When another creature damages you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one panache point to reduce the damage by a number equal to your Initiative modifier.

And others at higher levels:Deadly Deflection. If an enemy within 5 feet of you misses you with a melee weapon attack, you can spend one panache point and your reaction to make them reroll their attack at any other creature of your choice within 5 feet of the enemy re-rolling the attack.Defensive Fighter. As long as you have at least 1 panache point in your pool, all light and finesse weapons you wield gain the defensive property. (Their bonus does not increase if they already have this property). Furthermore, you do not lose the bonus gained from weapons with the defensive property when you attack with them. (See the En5ider article As Good As His Blade for the defensive property).

And later:Difficult Target. As long as you have at least 1 panache point in your pool, you gain the benefits of the Evasion feature (as the monk ability, PHB p79). You also gain the Deflect Missile feature (as the monk ability, PHB p78), but you must be wielding a weapon with the defensive quality and spend a panache point to use this feature. You cannot catch the missile if you reduce the damage to 0 hit points, but you can spend another panache point to redirect the attack at a target within 5 feet of you. You make an attack roll as if you were using the weapon you used to deflect the missile. The damage from the original attack is now applied to the new target.

So, is it too much to tack an Unarmored defense onto this. (Adding INT mod to AC)?
I am for reriting these archetypes a little. I also need to modify the Duelist's Improved Crit and initial features. (But I will keep that to the duelist thread). This is simply - do we keep the Unfettered option?

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” – Harry S. Truman

I am wavering back in this regard to Nicko - what I HAVE to make sure of though, is that it works WITH these archetypes. It might be too much to have light fighter archetypes with defensive features AS WELL AS this Unfettered option.

If we keep, I might need to make some adjustments to the above listed features/maneuvers.

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” – Harry S. Truman